alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021502EN.01000501.xml

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — TC, UB v Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia, VA

(Case C-824/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Directive 2000/78/EC - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of disability - Article 2(2)(a) - Article 4(1) - Article 5 - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 21 and 26 - United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities - Duties of juror in criminal proceedings - Blind person - Total exclusion from participation in criminal proceedings)

(2021/C 502/07)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: TC, UB

Defendants: Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia, VA

Interested party: Varhovna administrativna prokuratura

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(2)(a) and Article 4(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, read in the light of Articles 21 and 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2010/48/EC of 26 November 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude that a blind person be totally deprived of any possibility of performing the duties of a juror in criminal proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit No. 23


                      Consent of Independent Accountants


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
Kaiser Group International, Inc. (formerly ICF Kaiser International, Inc.) (the
Company) on Forms S-8 [Registration Nos. 33-42677 (Non-Employee Directors Stock
Option Plan), 33-42678 (Stock Incentive Plan), 33-51460 (Section 401(k) Plan),
33-60663 (Retirement Plan), 33-60661 and 33-65351 (Employee Stock Ownership
Plan), 33-60665 (Consultants, Agents and Part-Time Employees Stock Plan) and 33-
51812 (Employee Stock Purchase Plan)] of our report dated April 14, 2000, on our
audits of the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule
of Kaiser Group International, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1999 and
1998, and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 1999,
which report is included in the Company's Report on Form 10-K.


                                         PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

McLean, Virginia
April 14, 2000
#### State v. Miller

16677

4/3/97

Denied

84 Hawai'i 269, 933 P.2d 606
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

TYRELL A. DERONVILLE

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 16

- 4326

[ October 4, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County ; Charles E. Burton , Judge; L.T. Case No. 13CF011618AMB

.

David J. Joffe of Joffe Law, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mitchell A. Egber,

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

D AMOORGIAN

, C IKLIN and C ONNER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATE OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER  Pursuant to Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18 United States Code

The undersigned, being the Principal Financial Officer of Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. (the "Partnership"), hereby certifies that the Partnership's Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004, filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that information contained
in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

|Date: November 5, 2004                                                              |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/MARK A. MAKIMark A. Maki
Vice President, Finance and Principal
Financial Officer |  | 

---



QuickLinks
January 6, 2000

22359

#### State v. Kaauwai

Reversed and Vacated
#### Matter of the Habeas Corpus of John H. GOFF, Petitioner.

No. A-12449.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

June 5, 1957.

John H. Goff, pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Lewis A. Wallace, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

*903BRETT, Presiding Judge.

This is an original pro se petition for habeas corpus filed herein by John H. Goff, wherein he seeks his release from the penitentiary. It is alleged in said petition that he has been confined therein since the October, 1955, term of the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, wherein he was convicted of the charge of second degree burglary, second and subsequent offense, and sentenced to fifteen years confinement in the state penitentiary. He alleges in said petition that sentence was imposed without sufficient evidence and that he was not accorded a fair and impartial trial, and that he was represented by a public defender who failed to move for a new trial or give notice of appeal and thereby he was inadequately represented. In his petition it is admitted that no petition in error was ever filed in the within Court within the six months allowed by law to file appeal.

To these allegations the state has made response in the form of a general denial. It is admitted that the defendant was convicted as alleged in the petition for which he is serving a fifteen year sentence. A copy of the judgment and sentence, which appears regular on its face, is attached to the state’s response.

It is apparent from this petition that the petitioner seeks to obtain relief by habeas corpus as a substitute for an appeal, for the reason no jurisdictional errors are alleged, the court having jurisdiction of the person of the petitioner, jurisdiction of the subject matter, and authority under the law to pronounce the judgment and sentence. In re Watson, Okl.Cr., 297 P.2d 569. It has been repeatedly held that substitution of habeas corpus for appeal will not be permitted. In re Boyd, Okl.Cr., 302 P.2d 494; Ex parte Brewster, Okl.Cr., 284 P.2d 755; Ex parte Williams, Okl.Cr., 284 P.2d 1034.

The petition for habeas corpus is accordingly denied.

POWELL and NIX, JJ., concur.
#### Chung v. State

19843

1/15/98

Vacated and Remanded
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

                                           EXHIBIT 27
                                      FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE

                                       TREMONT ADVISERS, INC.
                                         SEPTEMBER 30, 1998

<ARTICLE>                     5

       
<LEGEND>
   
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS  UNAUDITED SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED
FROM THE CONDENSED FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND FOR PERIOD
THEN ENDED.  THIS  INFORMATION IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. 

</LEGEND>
<CIK>     0000880320                        
<NAME>   Tremont Advisers, Inc.                   
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998                               
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         1,322,228
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,703,509
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (35,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,195,709
<PP&E>                                         849,796
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (479,139)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6,854,787
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,389,687
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       42,193
<OTHER-SE>                                     4,919,834
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   6,854,787
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               7,623,468
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  5,806,582
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,773,378
<INCOME-TAX>                                   655,594
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,117,784
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,117,784
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.26
        


</TABLE>
# C_2019213EN.01003201.xml

| 24.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — Briois v Parliament

(Case T-214/18) (1)

(Privileges and immunities - Member of the European Parliament - Decision to waive parliamentary immunity - Relation with parliamentary duties - Equal treatment - Principle of sound administration - Rights of the defence - Non-contractual liability)

(2019/C 213/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Steeve Briois (Hénin-Beaumont, France) (represented by: F. Wagner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz and S. Alonso de León, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, first, under Article 263 TFEU, seeking annulment of the decision P8_TA(2018)0020 of the Parliament of 6 February 2018 to waive the applicant’s parliamentary immunity and, secondly, application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Steeve Briois to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Steeve Briois to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 18.6.2018.

---
18990

#### Lance v. Kahue; City and County of Honolulu v. Kahue

Affirmed
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Decision Tracker Guidance for CVB

Last Modified: 

Print

Decision Tracker (DT) is an internal web application used by staff of the Center for

Veterinary Biologics (CVB) for knowledge management within the agency.

Guidance materials for internal users are posted below.

User Guides

Title Doc

ID

Publication

Date

Decision Tracker General User Guide for Center for

Veterinary Biologics (2.32 MB) 1 3/8/2023

Decision Tracker Business Administrator User Guide (1.56

MB) 2 3/8/2023

Decision Tracker Roles and Privileges (201.82 KB) 3 ######

Training Videos

The videos demonstrate how to use Decision Tracker for different tasks. They can be

used individually or in conjunction with the User Guides. 

Title Description
Decision Tracker

Demonstration Video

This video introduces the application and highlights some

of the features.

How to Create a New

Item for a New Proposal

This video explains how to create an item in the

application.

How to Move an Item

Forward

This video explains how to move an item forward for

further action by another user in the application.

How to Initiate a Child

Workflow

This video explains how to send an item to another user for

input while maintaining control of the item in the

application.

How to Initiate the

Internal Program

Review

This video is intended for Policy Managers or PEL

Management Team and explains how to send an item down

the path for Internal Program Review in the application.

How to Perform an

Internal Program

Review

This video is intended for all CVB staff and explains how

perform an Internal Program Review on an item in the

application.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas January 20, 2023
No. 04

- 22

- 00561

- CR
William Huiz ar WILSON , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
From the 81st Judicial District Court , Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 19

- 03

- 0075

- CRA Honorable Russell Wilson , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R After we granted A ppellant’s first motion for extension of time, Appellant’s brief wa s due on January 17, 2023

. On t he due date, Appellant filed a motion for a nother thirty

- day extension of time to file the brief

. Appellant’s motion is granted

. Appellant’s brief is due on February 16 , 202 3

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38. 6( d ). Any further motion for extension of time to file the brief may be disfavored.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 20th day of January, 2023

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ , Clerk of Court
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 639 

Authorizing the Speaker to appear as amicus curiae on behalf of the House 

of Representatives in the matter of United States, et al. v. Texas, 

et al., No. 15–674. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 14, 2016 

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the Speaker to appear as amicus curiae on behalf of the House of Representatives in the matter of 

United States, et al. v. Texas, et al., No. 15–674. 

1 Resolved, That the Speaker is authorized to appear 

2 as amicus curiae on behalf of the House of Representa3 tives in the Supreme Court in the matter of United States, 

4 et al. v. Texas, et al., No. 15–674, and to file a brief in 

5 support of the position that the petitioners have acted in 

6 a manner that is not consistent with their duties under 

7 the Constitution and laws of the United States. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 639 IH 

1 SEC. 2. The Speaker shall notify the House of Rep2 resentatives of a decision to file one or more briefs as ami3 cus curiae pursuant to this resolution. 

4 SEC. 3. The Office of General Counsel of the House 

5 of Representatives, at the direction of the Speaker, shall 

6 represent the House in connection with the filing of any 

7 brief as amicus curiae pursuant to this resolution, includ8 ing supervision of any outside counsel providing services 

9 to the Speaker on a pro bono basis for such purpose. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Preventative Maintenance Checklist

(Text mainly from Pull_Up) 

EVERY WEEK or EVERY 10 FLIGHTS, WHICHEVER SOONER:

- Check for damage, wear and crack on all the parts. 

- Check tightness of motor retaining screws and shell retaining screws in case some needed to be tightened up a bit. 

- Check motors move freely when spun by hand; 

- Turn motors shafts with your fingers and verify they are smooth without excessive play or binding (missing E clip? 

 Loose bell housing screw? Bad bearings?). 

- Check batteries for number of cycles and discharge per DJI recommendations if required (Number of cycles can be 

found in Vision Assistant): 

 - Charge and discharge the battery completely once every 20 charge/discharge cycles. To discharge: when you 

 come back from a flight and the % is fairly low, just hold it off in a hover at about a foot or two off the ground - it 

 goes fairly quickly - when you get to 8%, ease off the throttle and lands it at about 7%. If you land and let it idle, 

 it takes forever. Then recharge it to maximum capacity. This power cycling procedure will optimize the battery. 

- For long term storage, place the battery with only a 40~50% charge in a strong battery box. Discharge and charge 

the battery once every 3 months to keep it in good condition. Charge amount should be varied in these 

maintenance charges - (40%~50%)—0%—100%—(40%~50%). 

- Purchase a new battery after your current battery has been discharged over 300 times. Completely discharge a 

 battery prior to disposal. Please dispose of batteries properly. 

- Warning: If current battery level is over 75% (4 Leds On/Flashing), the battery should be turned on before 

 charging. 

EVERY MONTH or EVERY 40 FLIGHTS, WHICHEVER SOONER:

- Link the Phantom to the RC & Vision Assistant Software and check for Updates, Remote Control Sticks & IMU 

Calibration state and if all battery cells have good balance (repeat for all batteries). 

- Clean data spring pins and battery contact pads with alcohol and swab or proprietary electrical contact cleaner and 

 cycle spring pins several times to check for spring weakness and full unimpeded travel; 

- Check the Battery life: 

ONCE/TWICE A YEAR OR WHEN YOU FEEL IT MIGHT BE NECESSARY (like after a major crash):

- Remove upper shell and check state of all wiring - plugs fully seated, condition of all solder joints, condition of 

visible circuit boards and wiring runs, internals generally clean and no debris/loose items. 

- Remove motors and check security of E clips, condition of bearings and general visual inspection. 

- Check this out for a more visual description: How to do preventative maintenance checks, hints and tips

Page 41
H. Res. 603 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

February 4, 2016. 

Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are 

hereby, ranked as follows on the following standing committee of the House of Representatives: 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS: Mr. Takai, after Mrs. 

Lawrence; and Ms. Adams, after Ms. Clarke of New York. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 25, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5210]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                     IN RECOGNITION OF CARSON BAIRD

  (Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to 
address the House for 1 minute.)
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, as cochair of the Career 
and Technical Education Caucus, I rise to recognize Mr. Carson Baird on 
his retirement from Penn State University's Learning Factory.
  Carson Baird's background in motorsports started in racing while he 
proudly served in the United States Army. Following his service, he 
went on to hold the International Motor Sports Association 
Championship, three manufacturer championships, and three driver 
championships, having raced in classics such as the 24 hours of Daytona 
and the 24 hours at LeMans.
  Since 1994, Carson Baird has served as supervisor of the Learning 
Factory, supporting the mission to bring the real world into the 
classroom by providing engineering students with hands-on experience 
through industry-sponsored projects. Carson Baird helped oversee an 
expansion of the Learning Factory that doubled its size, and in 2006, 
he was part of a team honored with the National Academy of 
Engineering's Gordon Prize for ``Innovations in Engineering 
Education.''
  Carson Baird has applied his motorsports background to assist nearly 
700 students on 150 projects that span 13 majors and engage students in 
five colleges.
  I commend Mr. Carson Baird on his vision and dedication to tomorrow's 
engineers, and I wish him the best in his retirement.

                          ____________________
```
# THEA-ITORNEYGENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN. **TRxAS** 

### 78711

October 11, 1974 The Honorable Laurence R. Melton Chairman, The Governor’s Committee for Employment ofthe Handicapped TEC Building Austin, Texas 78778

Dear Mr. Melton: Opinion No. H- 420 Re: Whether architectural barriers touse of facilities by physically handicapped persons constitute discrimination under Article 4419e. V. T. C.S. You have requested aninterpretation ofArticle 4419e, Sec. 3, V. T. C.S. This Article concerns the use by physically handicapped persons ofpublic facilities. Section 3proscribes discrimination affecting such use. You ask specifically whether architectural barriers created by curbs, steps, narrow doorways, etc., constitute discrimination as defined inthe Section. We begin with a comparative examination ofArticles 4419e and 678g, V. T. C.S., which were enacted contemporaneously by the 6lst Legislature. Article 6788 requires publicly-financed build@ and facilities to be constructed so as tomake them accessible to the physically handicapped. The statute establishes detailed design criteria and makes the State Building Commission primarily responsible for administration and enforcement ofthe Act. Itestablishes an affirmative program to remove architectural barriers in publicly-financed facilities.

Incontrast, Article 4419e makes it amisdemeanor offense to discriminate against physically handicapped persons. Itproscribes discrimination such as a refusal to accept ahandicapped person as a passenger onacommon carrier, or a charge ofadditional fare for his mobility aids, such as a dog guide or wheel chair [Sec. 3(b)], or a denial ofadmission to apublic facility by ahandicapped person because ofhis handicap [Sec. 3(c)]. Section 3(d) ofthe Article further defines discrimination to include:

pe 1956The Honorable Laurence Melton, page 2 (H-420)

. . . an open and obvious refusal to allow a handicapped person to use or be admitted to any public facility, as well as discrimination based upon a ruse or subterfuge calculated to prevent or discourage ahandicapped person from using or being admitted to apublic facility..
. . Article 4419e does not purport to remove physical barriers topublic facilities, but seeks to eliminate discriminatory policies, rules or regulations. It regulates conduct, not construction. While the discriminatory conduct proscribed by Article 4419e could involve the intentional erection ofarchitectural or other physical barriers toprevent access by the physically handicapped, we do notbelieve that themere existence of such barriers or the failure to remove them could serve as abasis for prosecution under that Section. SUMMARY Article 4419e does not, per se. prohibit architectural designs which may amount to a barrier to a handicapped person’s use ofapublic facility unless such design is intentionally formulated toprevent or discourage such use. Very truly yours,

P da

OHN L. HILL Attorney General of Texas A ) VED:

&$Eznt

DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman Opinion Committee
.p. 1957